Rava on 61B explains why the Torah mentions Yetzias Mitzrayim in 3 places.
1. By Ribis
2. By Mishkolos
3. By Tzitzis
1. Why does Rashi give Mareh M'Komos for only the first 2.
2. I looked up these 1st two places in the Chumash and found that Rashi gives the reason of our Gemorah of 'Ani Mavchin' plus another reason of 'Al Menas Keyn'.
Now, by Ribis he mentions our Gemorah as the main reason and as a Davar Achar he also mentions 'Al Menas Keyn' .
Yet by Mishkolos, he mentions 'Al Menas Keyn' as the main reason and our Gemorah only as the 'Davar Acher'.
I thought that looking up the 3rd location by Tzitzis will help solve the issue. But when I looked there, Rashi seems to learn this case different from Ribis and different also from Mishkolos!
Is Rashi Meduyak?!
Kol Tuv
Alex Lebovits, Toronto, Canada
1. I would suggest that Rashi omits the Mar'eh Makom by Tzitzis, because he assumes that everybody knows it by heart.
2. It seems to me that Rashi in Chumash is giving two independent explanations, one in accordance with the Gemara in Bava Metzia, the other, based on Midrashim (as most Rashi's are), in connection with the Pesukim where each one is written.
In the Pasuk of Ribis, Rashi connects his alternative explanation with the Pasuk that follows (i.e. "Laseis Lachem Es Eretz Kena'an ... "). You will see that his alternative explanation and the following two Rashi's follow the same pattern. That explains why he cites his alternative explanation second.
Whereas in the Pasuk of Mishkolos, his alternative explanation refers exclusively to the Lav of Mishkolos that is written before 'Yetzi'as Mitzrayim', so he places it first.
In other words, the order of Rashi's two answers in both places is a matter of juxtaposition, not of priority. So as you see, Rashi is, as always, very Meduyak!
In Parshas Tzitzis, Rashi mentions the second reason, in keeping with the alternative explanation by Ribis and Mishkolos. I don't understand your final statement, but I do see that Rashi fails to cite our Gemara's explanation there, and I agree that this does seem strange.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler